Where have the newspapers all gone?

Data for 2008

There is no way to escape the recent news of more and more newspapers going bankrupt. The recent closings of the Examiner and Rocky Mountain News are some of the latest victims, with more newspapers on the horizon. These papers are all victims of among other causes declining circulation and reduced ad revenues partly due to the economic down turn. Additionally, if the writing quality is poor, circulation will contract regardless of the economic environment.

Contracting Newspaper Circulation

The rise of the web and the ubiquity of freely available online news content in various formats - RSS feeds, web portals, online versions of "news TV" sites, and even online versions of the newspapers themselves – are now competitors to the more traditional physical paid-for and even free newspapers. Clearly, the freely available online content is now dramatically impacting print based newspapers circulation. While I was brought up on reading the daily newspaper, I have embraced the new online model and have never personally subscribed to a physical newspaper. (Plus, I am helping the environment by reducing my paper waste – even if it can be recycled.)

Magazines – Immune or lag
I even recently decided to let my magazine subscriptions expire, as these companies now have websites that provide the same content. Interestingly enough, I have found that these sites tend to be even better than the physical magazine, since I can easily jump to the information that I like and skip everything else. Based on this thought, I wondered if magazine subscription circulation was declining as well. A Google search provided me with this link that indicated that subscriptions as of 2007 have not declined, and in fact are rising. While this data does not include numbers from 2008, a careful review of the data shows a sizeable decline between 2000 and 2003 (Dot com bust anyone?). I wonder if 2009 and subsequent years will show that the decline in the magazine industry is just a few steps behind the newspapers.

The Next Step
It is unfortunate that newspapers – and maybe magazines - are the next casualty to the Web 2.0 environment. However, if the true idea behind running a newspaper is to disseminate news to its readers, the online model continues to accomplish this goal. I do wonder if some traditional newspapers will find success in shifting to a completely online model.

Here is an interesting article by the Washington Post that summarizes my points.

Privacy – The Google Way

Google Street View has helped me out numerous times when trying to get a clear idea of what the surrounding area actually looks like when traveling to a new location. Reflecting back on maps.google.com's history, it has matured from just being able to see (1) the streets, then (2) satellite imagery, then (3) terrain, then (4) traffic flow, and now (5) the static street view. The whole product itself is a prime example of Web 2.0 at its best. (I do wonder if we'll ever get to the point where Google Maps will mature from static street views to live real-time views.)

While all of these maps and imagery advancements are fantastic capabilities for the inquiring traveler, Google Map's images have also raised privacy concerns. Some of Google Map's static images included clear pictures of people's faces, car license plates, private roads, and other questionable images which raised privacy concerns with the public.

Fortunately, Google has respond and allows users to request to have the images removed. See this link for more details.

However, in other cases about Google Map's privacy issues, Google has prevailed. Google has recently won privacy suits against it for taking images of roads and houses marked with "private" signs. The most interesting comment from Google about this topic is the following quote (from the above link):
'"Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," '
With the ruling and Google's above comment, a user can take the necessary precautions to avoid putting private, semi-private, or even public information about themselves on social networking and internet community sites, but must remember that in the Web 2.0 world, satellite imagery is another privacy vector that needs attention.

It is also worthy to note that the privacy laws in other countries are different and more stringent than those in the US and Google needs to be cognizant of the necessary changes needed to ensure compliance. While the access to Web content seamlessly cross countries, continents, and oceans, it is interesting to see how country specific privacy laws can help to placate regionally specific privacy officials.

On a positive note, though, Google has responded to the community's complaints and started to incorporate selective area image blurring technology to help conceal the identity of people and cars that appear on its Street View images.

Facebook Privacy - Round II

It has been very amusing to follow the very recent privacy events occurring on Facebook. Almost each day this week a new event, article, and round of commentary has surfaced regarding the change and reneging of Facebook's privacy policy. The first article that I found was here which detailed the change that Facebook made, which allowed it to continue to use any information that was posted by a user, for an unlimited amount of time, even after the user account itself was deleted from the system. As expected, tens of thousands of Facebook users voiced their displeasure. A group was even preparing to file a complaint to the FTC as well.
The next day or so, an article researched the various privacy polices of other online sites, and posted the most interesting sections of the policies. Essentially, almost any online company/service has a tightly worded policy that boils down to the users having no right to their privacy for any type of data or actions performed with the respective service. Interestingly some of the terms of service are very close to the new Facebook policy of retaining any type of account information even after the account has been deleted.
Fortunately for Facebook users, Facebook, yielded to the viral campaign and reversed its policy. It is interesting, though, that other services such as Monster.com, which retain user data after the termination of an account, have not been forced via viral campaigns to change their terms of service. Perhaps such an outcry has not been made since the users just don't know about the policy. Or maybe these users don't care.
Regardless, users who send any type of communication using any type of online service should not expect that the data they send is protected for the privacy in any way, unless explicitly indicated. In other words, users should assume that anything online is public knowledge and could be made available to the public domain unless unless explicitly told otherwise. Otherwise, it is up to the users to protect, encrypt and/or obfuscate their data.
But who actually reads the terms of service or wants to deal with the hassle of encrypting their data? Maybe these recent Facebook incidents will cause more people to take the time to read and to understand the terms of service and at the very least think twice about making their inner most thoughts available online.

Cutting the Umbilical Cable (cord)?

Last night, while I was watching Survivor on my laptop computer over cbs.com, I reflected upon the number of technological advances that have been made over the past few years:
(1) The video quality on my laptop is now far superior to my standard TV set.
(2) Skipping ahead during the boring parts of the show was very smooth and did not produce lengthy delays in the feed.
(3) Un-pausing the video did not cause a lengthy delay
(4) The minimal commercial interruptions were tolerable since I (A) knew when they were coming, and (B) were less than 30 seconds.

This experience far surpassed watching the show live on my poor quality TV, having to deal with lengthy (3+ minute) commercial breaks, not knowing when the breaks were coming, and being unable to skip ahead at will. As you can guess, I do not own a TiVO since I refuse to pay for the device or service.

Recently, I have also been using Hulu [www.hulu.com] and sometimes YouTube to catch re-runs of my other favorite TV shows that I always miss watching real time since they tend to come on too late in the evening for me. Between Hulu, YouTube, and the TV station Web Sites I can now get about 95% of everything that I'd ever want to see on live TV. The question I am now pondering is, "Are the available online videos at the stage where I can get everything I'd ever want to see over the Internet and ditch cable?" I'd love to save the over $60/month I paid for 1,000+ channels of which I watch about 5.

Unfortunately, it's that 5% that keeps me from cutting the cord, but what about other people who can now get it all online? Should the big subscription TV providers be worried about a demand decline?

A quick news.google.com search revealed that I am not alone in my thinking - Read the following article "Netflix Broadband Model May Upend Cable" which provides numerical data to back up my claim that there is a definite shift in the growth of cable due in part to the wider availability of accessing the desired content online.

Perhaps money isn't even the most driving factor for the switch away from 'watch TV on a TV' either. As this article "Unplug and Run" highlights the recent ability to obtain media content over a wide verities of portal/wireless devices is also driving people away from their traditional TV sets and from their traditional TV view locations. (For example, I was watching Survivor in my kitchen where a traditional TV is nonexistent.)

Over the next few years, it will be interesting to see if the year-over-year cable/satellite subscriber backup these predictions.

YouTube Statistics - Good or Bad?

Last night at dinner my mother really shocked me –

Mom: I am really learning my Spanish now, and I can really read that great Spanish book my friend gave me.
Me: Oh how nice.
Mom: Then I went onto YouTube to find search for lectures by the author so I could learn more about his ideas and practice my Spanish some more...
Me: You what? You used YouTube?! To find what?!

I never expected (1) my mother to use YouTube and (2) find Spanish spoken lectures to use for Spanish practice. This is my mother, whom I had to first teach how to use a mouse and now she is fully leveraging the spoils of the Web 2.0 world.

Our conversation made me wonder what type of statistical information I could find out about who viewed YouTube videos (and maybe their ages).

My first solid Google hit was this blog, or viewed better here, which contained interesting facts such as (as of March 2008):

Total # of videos (~78,000,000)
Total # of videos uploaded per day (200,000)
Time it would take to watch all of the currently up loaded videos (~412 years)

Interesting, yes, but what I found next was most intriguing. Apparently, last year YouTube released YouTube Insight, which lets users see a wide variety of statistical information about their videos.
Examples include:
# of people who watched the video tracked over time
Geographical location of viewers
Where the viewers came from to see the video (website link, Google search, YouTube search)

YouTube's Own Video Describing Insight


A quick search on YouTube produced two good personal videos describing the details of YouTube Insight from their own perspectives. The first one highlights the positive side of YouTube Insight.


The next video casts Insight in a negative light and highlights how the statistical information can be used by the 'evil' advertisers and marketers.



I disagree with the negative tone of the second video and feel that it is only fitting that information provided for 'free' to the video owners can also be used by money making minded people and organizations as well. Each party is getting access to interesting information.

Yet the average user can not do too much with the information while the advertisers can make a profit from the same information as an article in the New York Times highlights, " But it is likely that marketers rather than casual users will be clamoring for these tools the most. YouTube executives suggest that marketers can use the tools in several ways. A movie studio might run several versions of a trailer to see what is catching on where, and if a humorous spot is catching fire in Texas, might start running that trailer as a TV ad in the state."

What might be an interesting byproduct, though, would be a synergy between the average uploader and advertisers. Maybe video uploaders could analyze their own video's statistical information and used that knowledge to market their videos popularity to advertisers in order for each party to generate revenue.

Finally, as I have said in other posts I understand that we as Web 2.0 users must allow our 'personal' information (personal video statistics) to become part of the public domain us in order to enjoy the 'free' (advertising supported) Web 2.0 applications.

Second Life

After setting up my Second Life account I promptly forgot my password and was unable to log in. After 10 minutes of attempting to guess my own password, I clicked on the "forgot password link" assuming that it would be a painless process to re-set my Second Life account's password. What unfolded was an interesting foray into part of the security policy of Second Life.

The "forgot password link" generated an e-mail, which contained another link to use. This new link led me to a page that asked me to verify my last credit card or PayPal transaction in order to allow me to re-set my password. Although I entered the correct amount, my request was rejected, and I was warned that I had "limited attempts to retry". Fortunately, I was also given a phone number to call.

I gave the number a ring and was connected to an individual with a thick British Accent, making me wonder where the help center was physically located. After the usual dialogue about my problem and questions about my account name (first name and last name) the questions became a little more interesting and unexpected.

Operator: In order to help you re-set your password, I need to ask you some more questions. What is your real first name, real last name, birth date, and your birth city?

Me: Uh, hang on.

My first thought was, "You mean I actually need to remember the gibberish I entered when signing up for a Second Life account? I wondered why they wanted this information and now, I somehow need to remember what I entered."

Lucky for me, I was able to cull this information from deep within my brain and I was eventually able to re-access my account. But, was it really worth all of the hassle?

Once I got back into Second Life and really spent some time wandering around and using the information and videos I looked at on the Second Life Wiki I discovered that:
(1) 2 hours of my life had disappeared
(2) It was night time and most of the places I found interesting were devoid of people
(3) A "help" Avatar had no idea what "Do you want to go for a walk?" meant
(4) People can do very interesting and 'mature' things with their Avator, especially, it seems, when your family members are [A] walking near your computer; and [B] asking you at that precise second "How is it going in that game you are playing?"
(5) Rowing a boat without oars is really hard and it's more fun to just ditch the boat and walk around under water
(6) My connection is slow and I must be patient and wait for the helpful note cards to appear
(7) My family members provide much more interesting conversations than any Avatar could can provide
(8) I liked the old days when all virtual talkers were text based and used text-based expressions to depict movement , expressions , and actions .

In the end, I am not sure if it was worth the pains of getting back into my account given my last experience.

I am sure I'll have more Second Life experiences in the future that might help to change my mind.

Privacy

Due to the open and sharing nature of the Internet, I am willing to give up some of my privacy in exchange, or as a payment, for services that I enjoy for free. For example, I really enjoy using my free web-based e-mail accounts and I understand that these services can be provided to me at no cost, due to ads that are displayed on the page. Even when one service changed it advertising policy to automatically opt-in its users to receive targeted information, at least an opt-out option was provided to the users.

Recently, though, I have noticed that banner ads have become smarter, and are showing more relevant and targeted information based on previous internet based searches I had performed. Naturally, these banner ads appear in my web based email account. An additional twist is that at least one email service scans the contents of your email in order to display more relevant ads. Since I at least spent a fraction of a second longer looking at these types of targeted ads, I can understand, from a business standpoint, as to why these types of ads should be more successful. However, understanding how the information was obtained to generate these ads could raise some privacy concerns. In order to generate the targeted ads, essentially my ever move online (searches, websites, email, etc.) needs to be collected, stored, and analyzed in one or more locations, and then repackaged into an ad that is pushed down to my email account. I never really knew, or signed up to have, my online activities would be aggregated and be used to try and get me to spend money. [A similar parallel would be receiving snail mail based solely on the areas which establishments (food, clothing, entertainment, leisure, etc.) I physically visited, but never signed up to receive any marketing information.]

Google Latitude

The recent release of Google Latitude is another example of an online service that could raise some privacy concerns. This free service allows users to have their physical location tracked and updated real-time on Google Maps. The information is updated either by the physical location of their web-enabled cell phone or computer.
Almost immediately, privacy concerns where raised.
Here is another good article about why one person is not going to use Google Latitude. However, a little bit of reading on Google Latitude's site about privacy, indicates a number of settings and options that a user can use to limit – or completely disable - the type of information that is displayed on Google Maps. [SIDE NOTE: Maybe Google Latitude is something that could be used to implement my personalized individual traffic collection and update wishes.]

Known No Privacy = Free?
Most of the services online are free of charge and it is my choice to use these services free of monetary charge if I am willing to exchange some of my privacy. I believe the real privacy concerns come when users (1) do not know that information is being collected; and (2) do not have a choice to opt-out; and (3) the information can be used against them in a harmful manner.

Super Bowl Ads

I've got to start my posting about super bowl ads early.

Banned PETA Ad
I really think that PETA made this ad on purpose knowing that it would be banned so that they did not have to spend the $3,000,000 to air the ad on TV, but would get it posted on the web (YouTube) for free and still get their message across. Without YouTube, Google Video and other similar sites along with the increasing availability of high speed broadband in the home this type of marketing technique would have never been possible. Plus, those of us who like to see ads again and again are no longer limited to Tivos and other DVRs.




One Second Ads
With the $3,000,000 price tag for 30 seconds, a Miller is going with one second spots in some markets that only cost $100,000 per throw (pun intended). A one-second ad could be a challenge to be effective, but a one-second ad viewed 1,000s of times on the Internet (YouTube and Google Video to the rescue) will probably be effective to some degree and cost a lot less.




Spilling the Beans
While online video sites have also freed us from the Tivo and DVR when we want to replay the commercials, these sites have also given use the ability to preview the ads before they air. I think this capability is great since it gets the message out earlier, but at the same time, I think it detracts from the allure and suspense of the Super Bowl commercials. If I have already seen the ads, it is no longer as much fun to watch the event. As long as the impatient do not take a sneak peak, I think these sites only help to get the messages promoted earlier (and for free too).

Winners and Losers
Losers
The GoDaddy.com online video was horrible and was rather tame. I think that it was really a ploy to get people to log onto the site. Given that the placement of the video was on the lower right-hand side of the page, I think this only reaffirms my observation, since the viewer usually looks at the upper left hand side of the page first then moves down and to the right.

One-Second Ad
In the spirit of Web 2.0 and DVRs, I missed the one-second miller ad, but caught it on DVR replay.